9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court judgment in the case of SOURAV GANGULY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA OTHERS [ 2016 (7) TMI 237 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ] held that arrangement between the owner Company and the cricket player is of employment hence players are not directly involved in brand promotion of a brand owner. Therefore, the activity of the cricket player does not fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Services - As per this settled legal position, in the present case also involving similar agreement and arrangement, the demand under Business Auxiliary Service does not sustain. Demand of service tax on remuneration received by the appellant from M/s. Nike India Pvt. Limited - HELD THAT:- In this case the appellant is indeed involved in direct brand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is that the appellant have provided the service of brand promotion which falls under the category of Business Auxiliary Service and the same is taxable under service tax. Similarly, as regards the remuneration received from M/s. Nike India Pvt. Limited for participation in promotional activities, the demand of service tax was raised. 2. Shri Mrugesh Pandya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that as per agreement for playing cricket on behalf of M/s. KPH Dreams Cricket Pvt. Limited (KPH), the same is for employment of the appellant with KPH and the appellant received remuneration for the same. He further submits that the appellant is not engaged in the brand promotion of any Company. Therefore, the agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany and the cricket player is of employment hence players are not directly involved in brand promotion of a brand owner. Therefore, the activity of the cricket player does not fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Services. As per this settled legal position, in the present case also involving similar agreement and arrangement, the demand under Business Auxiliary Service does not sustain. 6. As regards the demand of service tax on remuneration received by the appellant from M/s. Nike India Pvt. Limited, we find that in this case the appellant is indeed involved in direct brand promotion for the brand owner however, the appellant have claimed that the value of such service is well within the threshold limit provided under exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
